Friday, December 30, 2011

In case you haven't noticed, my biggest concern throughout this
blog has been the deficit, and it's my focus still in my thinking about
who I favor in the 2012 election. There is a scenario that especially
scares me: one-party domination.

In the last decade, the worst economic moves have been made when one
party had control over the presidency, the House, and the Senate:

At the 2012 election, we are facing the possibility of all three
bodies in Republican hands. (I don't see the Democrats recapturing the
House, and they have a better than 50% chance of losing the Senate.)

That
worries me because I recall what the Republicans did last time they
held the triple crown. We can't afford more Bush-type tax cuts, but I
don't trust newly elected Republicans to see it that way. Many
Republican candidates are promising major tax cuts already.

Although
the Republicans have been stalwarts on balancing increased spending
with revenue (or revenue gimmicks), we've seen before how quickly they
abandon all that good sense when they direct the deficit spending. As
painful as gridlock and obstruction may be, at least there is one good
result: less spending and no big tax cuts.

To prevent one-party domination, I'll be voting for a Democratic
president and a Democratic senator, even if I kind of like the
Republican. We need elected officials who will block the stupidity of a
thundering herd of partisans. In 2009, it was a herd of Democrats and
the Senate blocked some of their excesses. In 2013, it's likely to be
Republicans, so we'll need as Democratic a Senate as possible, and a
Democratic president as insurance if the Senate fails.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Partisanship is more the norm, but bipartisanship also has a robust
history. I was asking myself the question: is it really worse now than it
was in the past? Yes, I think so. In the past 3 years, Congress has
negotiated virtually no bills. A few measures have been so popular that
they passed easily, most recently a jobs bill for veterans, but that it
isn't the hard work of negotiating a compromise. All the compromises in
the past year have occurred as time ticked down to a shutdown or a
hard expiration date.

A welfare reform bill or
education bill worked on by both Bush and Kennedy would be unthinkable
today. There had been camaraderie among senators in past years, but not
now.

Not So Small Beginnings

I tried to think back to when this nearly constant
animosity started, and I think it was during Reagan presidency. There
won't be any proof of this, but I think there was a near constant
barrage of disagreement and belittling critique of the man, his
intelligence, and his policies. It wasn't surprising, because Reagan was
an existential threat to the liberal-leaning status quo. He wanted to
roll back a scary number of the gains liberal had made: welfare,
abortion, tax-free student loans, decreased military spending, women's
liberation.

One of the most blatant of the liberals'
attacks was on Robert
Bork, Reagan's nominee to the Supreme Court. Republican neither
forgave or forgot, and Supreme Court nominations have been generally
been contentious ever since. (To be clear, I agreed with the fight
against Bork. He was a frighteningly persuasive reactionary, and I don't
use those terms lightly.)

"I'll see you and raise you five."

This form of partisanship,
with constant attacks, became even more pronounced during the Clinton
administration. The tools--congregational hearings, constant news leaks,
rumors, special prosecutors (blessedly defunct now)--had all been used
before by Democrats out to embarrass a Republican administration.
Perhaps the Republicans added a few new tricks, such as finding PACs or
think-tanks that would financially sponsor accusers on press junkets
(though it's possible that wasn't a new twist).

The
Republicans really upped the ante with their impeachment
proceeding against Bill Clinton. Even a strong electoral repudiation
of the Republicans didn't deter the House Republican leadership, who
commenced impeachment proceeding after losing a significant number of
seats in the 1998 off-year election. Since then, the partisanship has
barely had even a Christmas truce, except perhaps Gore's altruistic
concession of the disputed 2000 presidential election. Each
president has been accused so often of being "the most polarizing figure
ever" that it could be a title equivalent with 'Mr. President.' I'm so
tired and cynical about all this partisanship that I don't want to
chronicle any more of it in this post. Suffice to say that it continues
unabated.

I don't have a hopeful note to end on. No pithy quip. I still
pray for an end to this partisanship, but without any spirit of
hopefulness. Sorry to be such a downer.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

We've all
heard about logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks. The straw man
argument, ad hominem attacks, exaggeration, etc. I'd like to catalog
more of these arguing tactics. Reader suggestions and verbatim examples
are strongly encouraged:

Straw man - An opponent raises up a terribly weak point in your
favor and busts it down. It's like punching a kid.

Ad hominem attack - You're a complete jerk, or moron, or traitor, or
... Your opponent may be a complete jerk too, but it doesn't make the
underlying argument better or worse.

Correlation is causation - Obama caused the recession, the debt,
etc. This is a big one because it can be used in so many situations.

Case closed - Annoying, one-sided closure of the argument.Variant: End of story, Period.

Irrelevant - Annoying, one-sided judgment of what the boundaries of an
argument will be.

Limit choices argument -- Status quo or my candidate. EPA overreach
or no EPA. Keep all the Bush tax cuts or none of them. You can reframe
the argument: someone is offering 0% or 100% and ignoring all the
possibilities in between.

Demand for proof - This can be legitimate, for example when someone
asserts a fact, like 47% of people pay no income tax, or makes other
kinds of assertions. But it's also used to derail the argument. It can
be used as a straw man, an offhand assertion that isn't central to the
argument, but an opponent picks it as a weak point and demands data.

Ignoring context - This is major, and is related to declaring
information irrelevant. No extenuating circumstances matter. For
example, unemployment was under 8% when Obama
was elected and soared to 10%.

Creating a diversion, or "look over there, something worse" -
Someone is clearly desperate when they try to distract you and steal
your chess pieces. Point out the maneuver, and hammer the point you just
made. It was probably a winner.

False comparisons - Our poor people are richer than 95% of the
world. Implication is that they aren't poor, so the money shouldn't be
spent on them. A give-away is the mention of different countries or
different eras.

Exaggeration - Making what is bad infinitely worse. Example: Taking
away our freedoms, ruined the economy, if it wasn't for medicare we
would all die.

False assertion - Claiming something that isn't true or is only an
opinion. This is a case when demanding evidence is a good idea. Ex.
Obama is the worst
president in my lifetime.

Examples:

Look at Europe and
Cuba and every other place that has government run
health care, they are in big financial trouble. - Correlation is
causation.

Additions:

13. It's common sense - Common sense always supports your side. This is similar to asserting something without evidence and declaring "case closed."

14. The well-known "No true Scotsman" argument. This is used to discredit someone so you don't have to listen to their point. All Americans should rally around the president. But here's an American who isn't rallying around. Must not be a true American.

15. Gotcha question - A question meant to derail a discussion rather than clarify positions or weak points. A gotcha question isn't on an important point in the argument, but on trivia. It functions similarly to the demand for proof (#7), and is similarly obnoxious in having a know-it-all smell to it. Example: "Pop quiz time: When MLK was in
jail, ... which
1960 presidential candidate called Coretta Scott King to express
sympathy and support: JFK, or RMN? Take all the time you need
before responding...."

*****************************************************************
If you'd like, add your own examples in the comments.

Links
to the 13
or 20
top fallacies. Link to a good list of 42 fallacies with excellent examples and very little Latin.

Thursday, December 22, 2011

You may see this proposal in the platform of Republicans. They advocate a
tax holiday for companies bringing home the profits collected in other
countries, called repatriation. I'm much less a business expert
than some who read this blog, so I may be about to subject myself to
cruel humiliation, but I'll attempt to explain this anyway.

The federal government taxes profits that US companies earn in foreign
countries. It gives credit for taxes paid in the original country, but
the companies still have to pay tax beyond that up to the top rate of
35%. Since the income tax rate on US companies is so high, companies may
park the profits and not take them officially. Companies are asking for
a tax holiday to bring the profits back to the US, reinvest them here,
and grow the economy.

Sounds like a no-brainer, right? Not quite. This is a great line, but I
hope it isn't successful like the "corporate gains and dividends are
double taxed" argument. The truth, which the companies won't be
mentioning, is that much of the money is already
deposited in US banks. Also, the last repatriation holiday resulted
in a lot of stock
buybacks, not new investment.

So, when I read this talking point sometime next year, I'll be ready
with this comeback:

This is a convenient argument for bigwigs
who would like to increase their personal wealth. A tax holiday would
allow executives to 1) repatriate profits, 2) avoid corporate taxes, 3)
initiate stock buy-backs, 4) raise the stock price, 5) sell stock at
higher prices, 6) take capital gains at 15% next year (if Obama is
re-elected) or possibly 0% in 2013 if there’s a Republican president.
But it’s very important for executives to get this repatriation tax
holiday soon,
because special low capital gains rates may be over at the end of 2012.

Do I think they’re planning to reinvest? No, but they hope other people
will believe it.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Ron Paul is finally getting a lot of press. Some higher power heard the collective prayers (or rants) from Paul supporters, and granted their wish. But as is wont to happen with wishes, it didn't turn out quite as hoped.

Now the media, instead of ignoring Ron Paul's numbers in this straw poll or that conservative conference, is reporting on Paul's surge in the Iowa pre-caucus polls. Mostly, it's "He might win Iowa, but that just shows how marginal Iowa is" or "There's no way he'll win the nomination." There are also a spate of articles on his newsletters from the 1990's with some racist articles that appeared under his byline.

All this gives Ron Paul supporters a new reason to call foul. I'm glad they have a new reason, because the old one was worn thinner than the elbows on my favorite shirt. They are shocked... shocked that the media is not all adulation and hero worship. I don't know how this happened, but every single one of Paul's supporters ignored what happens when the press turns its attention on someone, especially a candidate for president. The anointed Obama excepted, of course.

Now, I think it's a great idea to report on Paul's policies, and give them a real good inspection, because they don't hold up to scrutiny. But the coverage on his newsletter is also plenty fair. Paul has barely explained this ghost from his past. If I have to fill the blanks that he leaves, I'm not giving him much benefit of the doubt. Here goes:

Paul is a strict constitutional libertarian, and there aren't many around.

He'll hang with anyone who also says that they want the federal government out of their business.

Ron Paul craves any audience, and this is what came to him. He didn't look too closely at anything else they support and stand for. Why? Because the constitution is all that matters.

There is a lot of evidence that Paul is not a racist, but he didn't mind associating with them, or giving them control of his newsletter.

I don't want this guy as my president. I'll add this of my pile of reasons.

Move over, Tea Party. Cue a new bunch of people screaming about Sen. Byrd being in the KKK.

It's a fair question whether an issue form 20 years ago should matter so much. If it is wasn't a pattern, or was completely disavowed in word and deed, I'd agree. However, Paul has continued the pattern of poor associations with whackos. For him, crazy is OK so long as he gets airtime. I'll repeat, I don't want this guy as president.

Extras
Don't get no respect:

"Wow. The second Ron Paul becomes a viable candidate, the slander machine
begins. Someone REALLY doesn't want him to win... Don't you find it odd
that there was no mention of him before he started polling first, and
now that his numbers are rising, every mention is negative?!"

"Now that media's attempt to eliminate Paul haven't worked and he's due
to win Iowa, now all of a sudden 'iowa doesn't matter', and here come
the tired re-treads of this old canard."

"MSM should stick with what they do best cover Britney Spears or a
"sports hero" or any other useless time wasting coverage... " - Atlantic comments

Best defense of Ron Paul:

"Libertarianism is an attractive philosophy to racists... because it states that people should be allowed to freely associate
and enter into contracts with whomever they decide. This would mean
racists could have a private club and only allow same race people to
join... History shows, however, that
racists will flock to whatever party serves their interests at the
moment. They will switch parties based on superficial reasons. They've
switched between Democrats and Republicans." - Atlantic comment

Update 12/29/11. I allude to Paul's continuing pattern of working with whackos, but I should name names. Here goes: Alex Jones, truther and major conspiracy theorist. The New York Times has a longer list. I think this is important because it indicates potential risks in a Ron Paul presidency. All presidencies have risks, and it's good to identify them as well as we can and then choose. By the way, it was almost all Ron Paul all the time in political news today. He's not missing in the media anymore.

If
(note the 'if') Obama is the Carter of the 21st century, do we have a
Reagan to defeat him after one lucklustre term? As the tragicomedy of
the Republican nomination campaign continues, it becomes more and more
apparent that there is no 21st century Reagan to run against Obama.

I
hope I'm witnessing the demise of Newt Gingrich's campaign. I loathe
Newt because he has consistently put his ego above the good of the
country, or honesty, or countless other virtues. He is definitely no
Reagan.

Today, I regret that there isn't another
Reagan, with the caveat that the myth of Reagan glosses over many
characteristics out of favor today: negotiating with Democrats, raising
Social Security taxes, closing loopholes to increase revenue, increasing
deficit spending.

It could be that Reagan picked the
low hanging fruit that ripened during years of Democratic domination of
Congress. Not that I want to downplay his accomplishments. He showed
that the country could reverse the trend of ever increasing social
spending without the dire outcomes that liberals predicted (upsurge in
crime and desperation with the end of social programs). He also showed
the possibility for strong conservative policy objectives after the
previous 20 years had been mostly in line with liberal objectives.

Today's
Republicans are in a much different situation. Republican ideas have
been dominant for 30 years. So would a would-be 21st century Reagan be
running against the 20th century Reagan?

Maybe this is
the problem we're seeing. Republicans are running against their former
selves, at least to a certain extent. That's a problem Reagan didn't
have. He could go full bore against the excesses of the Democrats and
the exclusion of conservative ideas. Today's Republican candidates have
to thread the needle very carefully--use the tactic of blaming Democrats
as much as possible, throw in a few mea culpas and 'back to basics'
rhetoric. But they can't go full Reagan.

There's a
bigger problem than rhetorical positioning, however. Candidates can't
promise initiatives the way Reagan did because our fiscal situation
limits what we can do. Reagan's sunny outlook just doesn't fit with the
times. Would the electorate believe a candidate today who says we can
build up our military, face down our enemy, be the leader throughout the
world, reform entitlements and put them on a stable footing for the
next century, cut taxes, and unleash growth? We would probably roll our
eyes and ask: "We already did this. What do we do now?" That's a
question even Reagan couldn't answer.

Carter is to Obama as Reagan is to:
_____________________ (Your answer here.)

Thursday, December 15, 2011

I've written about my support of the Simpson-Bowles plan many times, but I'm finally doing a capsule review as I've done of Obama's, Romney's, and Cain's plans. A debt-reduction commission was created by Obama in early 2010 after Congress after the Republicans in the Senate refused to give a mandate for a commission and guarantee a vote on their recommendations.

The commission was bipartisan with members from the House, Senate, business, and economic experts. They worked from April 2010 until December 2010. In the end, 11 of 18 commission supported the report, with the dissenters split nearly equally between Dems and Repubs. (Thanks, Wikipedia, for this background.)

This plan is actually very readable with all major recommendations put into categories and bullet pointed, like this:

RECOMMENDATION 1.1: CAP DISCRETIONARY SPENDING THROUGH 2020. Hold spending in 2012 equal to or lower than spending in 2011, and return spending to pre-crisis 2008 levels in real terms in 2013. Limit future spending growth to half the projected inflation rate through 2020.

Budget Cuts

Roll back discretionary spending to $688 billion for security and $410 billion for non-security spending. Let agency heads recommend the budget reductions for their department; Congress will not be allowed to micromanage and protect a fiefdom.

If there are credits for low-wage workers and somewhat limited deductions for mortgage interest, health insurance, charitable giving, and retirement savings, the brackets would be 12, 22, and 28%.

Exemptions would be maintained as is. The standard deduction would become an exemption. A family of four would exempt $26,000 from taxes.

Business income tax would be 26 or 28%.

Health Care Spending

Freeze doctor reimbursement for 2013 and have a 1% reduction in 2014.

Reform the payment formula. Repeal the longterm care part of ACA (already done).

Institute a simpler, higher deductible higher copay.

Require the same drug rebate for some on Medicare as already used in Medicaid.

Increase fraud division.

Decrease contributions to states for Medicaid administration costs.

Reform malpractice law and create specialized courts.

Start pilot programs for health insurance vouchers for federal workers (already in ACA and part of Ryan plan for Medicare).

Create a board like the IPAB payment board to set reimbursement rates.

Once reforms are in place, establish hard caps that allow spending increases that match the percentage growth in GDP plus 1% per year.

Mandatory Spending Reforms

Change federal pension rules to bring them in line with lower rates in the private sector. Reduce spending on agricultural subsidies. There is also a bunch of smaller savings on student loans, general fees, mines, private pension insurance, energy, post office.

Social Security

Change benefit formulas to provide better support for low-income, very old, and long-term disabled. Provide less generous support at the high end. Raise the retirement age, tax more income, make state and local workers join SS.

Enforcement

Cut
spending somewhat gradually. Start tax increases after first year of
substantial spending cuts. The CBO will score spending bills and send
them back to committee when they
exceed the allotment for their category of spending. OMB can require
across the board cuts if Congress passes offending bills.

An appointed ongoing committee will recommend
2% cuts every
year by identifying programs that are no longer needed or not working as
planned. They will also recommend consolidation of redundant programs.

No
off-budget spending for wars.

Congress will define
what constitutes "emergency" and "disaster" spending. They will
establish a special fund for disaster relief based on 10 year
average.

My Critique

It's a great plan. I think the exemptions are a bit low. It doesn't zero out the deficit in its ten-year projection, which I think should be a goal in any plan because we can't pay down our debt until we have a zero deficit. Those are my two specific criticisms. That doesn't decrease my awe at the achievement of the commission. They were actually able to reach agreement in many areas:

Cutting the federal workforce

Discretionary spending limits

Healthcare spending (where agreement is especially hard to reach)

Social Security

Provisions to enforce the budget agreements

The one area where they couldn't reach a final agreement was tax reform, and even then, they agreed on a framework and three workable options within that framework. Whittling tax reform plans down to option A, B, or C, and getting agreement to present just those options is still a solid achievement.

You can compare the Simpson-Bowles plan to mine, but I wish you wouldn't. On the other hand, go ahead and compare it to Romney's plan and Obama's plan. For laughs, compare it to Cain's plan. Remember when he was the frontrunner?

The Payoff

Within the first 4 years of the plan, we reduce our deficit to 2.3% of GDP, then down to 0.8% by 2025. In the meantime, normal growth in GDP will make our debt smaller as a percent of the economy.

Green - current trajectory

Red - Bush tax cuts expire

Blue - Simpson-Bowles WIN!

Edit 12/27/11. Added my second criticism, that the plan didn't zero out the deficit.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

On Bernstein's blog, we were asked for our predictions for Iowa. The caucuses in Iowa are inscrutable to foreigners, and I'm definitely a foreigner with regard to Iowa, so I don't have a prediction. But others on the blog made longer-range predictions, like Paul was going to be a stronger contender throughout the primary season. Be sure to read the interesting array of ideas. As for me, I'm afraid that I have a vanilla prediction.

I have pity for Mitt. He's the most sensible choice for the general election (Paul would be slaughtered), but the girl he's waiting for keeps dancing with all these bad-boys. He's even tried to be more bad-boy himself, but it's not working.

Despite the reluctance of the national party, I do think Romney will win in NH. I was up there this past weekend, and Romney had the most and largest signs. Ron Paul is second.

Romney will do well enough to stay in the race past Florida, and he'll have stronger wins after that. Gingrich will win a few, but people will find him less and less charming. He'll enjoy the campaign, avoid becoming nasty to his rivals, and be cordial when he bows out.

Paul will keep up the fight, but he doesn't have a shot. He'll have to decide whether to run as an independent.

I haven't mentioned Iowa because don't think it's going to be important. The only exception to that is if Paul does really well
(1st or very high 2nd) and the same in NH. If Paul gets two wins or
near-wins, he'll finally get some press. Once he gets some coverage, the
merely curious will drop out, and he'll have only his die-hard 15%.
(Because he really is Nader crazy.)

The final scorecard will look like this:

Romney - gets the nomination, is gushingly grateful. The bride has her doubts all the way to the altar and beyond.

Gingrich - his good cheer wins him elder statesman status--less than Reagan, but more than any other Republican. He remains very partisan, with frequent visits to Fox News and all the right-wing think tanks.

Paul - 80% find out for sure that Paul IS crazy. Fifteen per cent know for sure he's a genius. The remaining 5% are split between lizard-alien, regular alien, and "who?"

*****************************************************

To me, it's almost as though the Republicans are a contestant on Let's Make a Deal. The only difference is that they can see the prizes, and still the choice is difficult. "... Do I want the RV, the Mediterranean casino cruise, or the goat? Oh no, I can't decide."

Bonus predictions: Callista divorces Newt and takes over the Huffington Post. Both Newt and Ron Paul will be contestants on The Apprentice. Pirate videos of Ron Paul grabbing Trump's hair will go viral. Newt will get a Christmas special on TV and dress up as an elf. Lots of Christian stars will sing. Sarah and Bristol Palin will visit. President Romney will visit on the second season. Newt dies happy and fulfilled. The End.

Update 12/30/11. This post is already a bit out of date. I know it stuck out like a red flag: "Gingrich will win a few..." It now looks like this part of my prediction won't pan out. And I couldn't be happier--I loathe Gingrich.

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Is it already too late to save the US from becoming Greece? I think there's hope. We have some time left, but we don't know how much time it is.

If this was an action movie, and the US was under a known threat of attack, there would be multiple military missions, conventional and unconventional, trying to prevent a terrible outcome. You can probably picture it--the stalwart hero who does everything he can think of to stop the devastation.

Well, we are under that kind of threat. We don't know how long we have to defuse the bomb, this bomb being our high and growing level of debt. And unlike in an suspense movie, I don't want to take any high stakes gambles. I don't want to try to shock our economy into a burst of activity that saves us, because what if it doesn't work? Shock treatment always costs a lot, whether direct government stimulus spending or tax cuts. The costs and risks are too high, and there is a good alternative.

We can take a conservative course. We can match our spending to our income. We haven't done that on a federal level in 11 years, and it'll be hard to do in just one year without causing painful shocks to our economy. However, we can put ourselves on a multi-year reducing diet plan. We can plan that in year 1 we will do this, in year 2 even more, etc.

Sticking to a budget can be hard for a family unless the family has 1) discipline and 2) some emergency money. The US is a wealthy country, so having some emergency money isn't really the problem. Discipline definitely is.

Right now, most of the country agrees that we have economic problems and rapidly increasing debt. In fact, that was the consensus at the beginning of 2010 when Obama created the deficit commission.

Unfortunately, there wasn't a consensus on the treatment. Was it more important to stimulate the economy to grow, and if so, using what method? This lack of consensus didn't hamper the deficit commission. As they studied the problem, most of the members came to a consensus, which became the Simpson-Bowles plan. Ultimately, the Republican and Democratic chairs (Simpson and Bowles) and 9 other committee members representing both parties approved the plan. However, there were dissents on both the right and the left. Obama damned the plan with faint praise, and Congress didn't act on it. This was an incredible waste, because a plan that can get bipartisan agreement is a rare achievement. This plan, supported by moderates, was scuttled by the extremes and the cowardly.

Once the plan was rejected, then we saw the plans from the extremes. Obama's initial budget proposal for 2012 had a deficit of $1.1 trillion. The Ryan plan cut only $90 billion, had a deficit of $1 trillion, and had future cuts that overwhelmingly affected domestic spending. Ron Paul's plan called for cutting $1 trillion in his first year. He's clearly unafraid of the economic shock. Consequently, no budget was ever passed for 2012. Instead, the government has operated under continuing resolutions for the entire year. Budgets cuts were agreed during a crisis over the debt ceiling, but there is no plan in place for 2012.

If Simpson-Bowles had been accepted, voted on, and passed, we would be nearly to our second year of the plan. Instead, we have a deeply polarized Congress, a current confrontation over payroll tax cuts, and no deal in sight for the Bush tax cuts due to expire at the end of 2012. We will stumble to a more balanced budget, even without a deal, thanks only to sunset provisions. I guess we should count our blessings. The extremes are canceling each other out (at least until the next election). A lucky default outcome is better than an expensive, ill-conceived policy, but a reasonable, conservative approach like Simpson-Bowles would be far better. In the meantime, the bomb is still live, and time is getting shorter.

Blue - new taxes, Red - spending cuts. Simpson-Bowles: Most balanced

Update 2/10/12. Greece today: "Papademos said failure to secure the $171
billion rescue package that’s under negotiation threatened 11
million Greeks with a default that would halt the payment of
wages and pensions and shut down schools, hospitals and
businesses." -- Bloomberg. Is that what we want in our future?

Friday, December 9, 2011

Romney isn't going to be able to corner Newt on policy
issues. He's already tried on health insurance mandates, and Newt simply admitted to it. He didn't go
on to justify it, he just left it as an error, plain, simple and small.
That was very smart.

Romney would be much better complimenting Newt on ideas and conservative strategy, then
questioning him on character issues and governing style. There's a lot
to work with there. Just imagine an open-ended question on how
Newt decided to do the global warming commercial with Pelosi.

...Gingrich's erratic behavior had imperiled future progress. "You were in a
situation where you would get up in the morning, and you would have the
to check the newspaper, the clippings, that was before the Internet, to
see what the Speaker had said that day that you were going to have to
clean up after in your own district."

Thursday, December 8, 2011

I set a goal for myself--try to understand the Tea Party from the inside. So I read a lot of blogs covering almost 2 years in this attempt to understand the goals, frustrations, emotions, etc. of the Tea Party. This is what I learned:

Tea Party types think there is nothing redeeming in Democrats, Democrats are crypto-communists who want the state to take over everything [this actually applies to just a few Democrats, mostly Kucinich and Nader supporters], MSM is completely biased [actually only partially biased], conservatives are the only patriots in this country, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And this is what I conclude: they are deluding themselves. They quietly went along with 7 years of the Bush administration, and only started questioning in the 8th year. Then, they don't even look for realistic solutions for problems they identify:

Banks are too big and too risky - government regulation is the problem.

Healthcare costs too much - repeal Obamacare.

Too much government spending - cut government workers, welfare, foreign aid, liberal programs like family planning, NPR, arts, university and student funding, that should be enough.

Budget is out of balance - cut taxes to stimulate the economy.

Not enough jobs - cut taxes to stimulate the economy.

They don't f*cking look at or care whether their supposed solutions have a hope of working against the identified problem. They are not in the realm of logic or observable fact or pragmatic thinking.

That's how they can blame Obama for the bad economy and deficits, even though this is exactly what Bush left on the plate! If someone believes it's all Obama's fault, it's a waste of time trying to convince them. I don't want to convince them. I just want to expose them.

Liberals

Likewise, in some ways, with liberals. This will be a shorter rant, because I haven't just done a bunch of research on liberals. The biggest thing that bothers me about liberals is their sense of math. It's not going to hurt to raise taxes a little for this wonderful social program, and then this one, and then this one, etc. Since it's for a good cause, money shouldn't be an impediment.

Excuse me, but I'd like to keep more of my money that you have myriad ways to spend. This is an imperfect country that all the money in the entire world won't fix, so let's set some limits and priorities and always, please, consider the costs.

One last thing, liberals, don't try to guilt me. It doesn't work, at least not on me. Why? Because I don't believe in the perfectability of people or this world. I am at peace with the plain fact of imperfection. I can choose my struggles, instead of every damn thing being a struggle.

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

In researching the roots of the Tea Party movement, I read many blogs. More illuminating than the posts were the comments. This is a selection, but often they are best read in context, with counterpoints, insults, and disagreements aired in a long stream. One comment can be egregious, next a thoughtful one. Most comments come from HotAir, a conservative multi-blogger site that excludes casual commenters. I highly recommend clicking on the links to get the flavor of discussions.

Here are some of the comments I found significant.

Disappointment with McCain as Nominee Apparent

When we lose in November it will teach us a
lesson. We need to nominate
a candidate who represents all 3 legs of the stool next time, none of
our candidates did that convincingly this time around, not even Fred in
reality... We need to get behind guys like Coburn and Demint,
they are the future. - HotAir
comment 2/5/08

Dirty Tricks on Hated Dems

The Dems are faced with two fantastic
options: If he wins, they will run this boob against an experienced,
established,
generally liked Senate leader. And The Obama will lose. If the Super
Delegates back Hillary they will face riots and that
will make me so happy I’ll have to dance around my front yard.
I’ll
vote for Hill-rod on the 5th! - HotAir
comment, 5/24/08, when Hillary was staying in the race.

Traitors

I
DO question his Patriotism, his Judgement, his Americanism, etc. I
consider him, and most of the “Democratic” “leadership”, nothing
but out, and outright Traitors for their disgraceful conduct during the
past 7 years, against this President, the Troops, etc. But Hey, what
would I know, I just served in Iraq the first time
around in the Marine Corps, lived over their, speak their language, and
have analyzed them for the last 30 years. - HotAir
comment 7/25/08

Bailout Mania

Harry Reid’s statement shows
me that the DEMS are scared $hitless.
They don’t have the confidence to say we are/or are not voting for this
and Barack believes this and he’s voting this way. NO! He’s telling us
what McCain is going to do. He has no idea what McCain’s going to do!
Someone else above said it right… I’ll believe it when McCain or at
least someone from his own party or campaign tells us he’ll support it.
I
repeat… the problem is, we don’t know the details. Who among us
has read the bailout plan and would understand it if we read it? I
would appreciate getting the chance to read it however. - HotAir
comment 9/23/08

Same Story, Different Names

There is already a strong vocal populist opposition, Gingrich adds to
it, and the democrats are instictively inclined to not do
anything Bush wants done. The democrats have been effective in
deflecting any responsibility for their own actions, and the
democrats
have so effectively destroyed the Bush Administration’s credibility that
the democrats could just adjourn congress without being blamed for the
results.[emphasis added] - HotAir
comment 9/23/08

Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
... He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated ... the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.... I submit to you that they [Democrats] understand the consequences... the goal is more malevolent - the failure is deliberate. Don't laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. - James Simpson, blogger and former White House economist 9/28/08

The Irony of a 2008 Dream Candidate

My Dream: President Bush
appears on national television to give a speech.
Standing next to him are Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney, and Warren Buffett.
Dick Cheney says, “I resign.” President Bush says, “I thank Vice
President Cheneyfor his service. I appoint Mitt Romney to be
Vice-President. He is a skilled financial manager. Just the guy we need
right now.

Romney is sworn in as Vice President.
President Bush starts talking
again. “Right now America needs a leader. Due to my standing in the
polls,
regretfully, I have lost credibility with the American public. I hereby
resign.

Romney is sworn in as President. Mitt Romney
starts talking. “Secretary Paulson has done a good job,
but people just aren’t listening to him. I hereby fire him. In his
place, I appoint Warren Buffett as acting Secretary of the Treasury. I
thank Mr. Buffett for serving his country in its hour of need.” Romney
and Buffett then get the Paulson plan passed and FDIC
insurance limits increased. Romney appoints Ed Morrissey as Vice
President. America is saved." - HotAir
comment 9/30/08

Too Late to Criticize

Oh,
and NOW you want McCain to criticize GW Bush? Where were you when
McCain bashed Bush and Rumsfeld in 2004 and 2005?
Saying that was proof of what a horrible guy he was, for daring to
criticize Bush? How about a few months ago when McCain visited LA
with Gov Jindal,
and (correctly) said that the Bush administration civilian response to
Katrina was incompetent? How about when McCain criticized Chris
Cox? Were you one of the people calling McCain a traitor for those
criticisms? But you now expect him to take your advice and go on a
full on
crusade against Bush/Paulson/Pelosi?
Yeah, you want him to win." HotAir
comment 9/30/08

Doomed

McCain seems to be
resigned not to win. Just this morning, I woke up with the
realization that he will not
win this thing, no matter what we do. But we MUST vote for him
nonetheless. The enemy is too strong to overcome. The Big
Temptation of the Pied
Piper is too strong to break. And America will follow him to the cave,
and then, to Marxist servitude. Yet, we still have to make a
stand. We MUST make a stand. - HotAir
comment 10/5/08

Equal Opportunity Delusion

Why do the libs always
believe that voting out irresponsible repubs
automatically means wholesale acceptance of every whackjob democrat plan
ever devised? Guess what, Rahm, 2000 and 2004 also saw two
consecutive elections
where the people “voted for change”, yet you and the rest of the left
cried foul.
The libs ALWAYS make this mistake, this time it will
cost us plenty
before they are done.
Bend over, here it comes. - HotAir
comment 11/19/08

Their Mess Now

And just what
are you going to say when it all falls apart? “It’s all George
Bush’s fault”? What is striking is how smug and clever these people sound
right now. Come January, we’ll see how they face reality when it
comes up and
kicks ‘em right in the nuts.- HotAir
comment 11/19/08

The Trouble With Voters

Remember that the voting public
are practically brain dead zombies with
an average 70 IQ... they go by impressions alone not policies. - HotAir
comment 11/19/08

Bambi’s got lots of super lefty
ideas to choose from, we’ll all be up to
our armpits in a glorious economy before long, I tell you. - HotAir
comment 1/9/09

I wonder if the Obama supporters
understand that the “you” might
include your boss or employer whose company makes over $250,000? ...Wrap
that all up in a pretty socialist bow and it’s no wonder that
with the messiah in control the pink slips are flying out in record
numbers. - HotAir
comments 1/9/09

Extra. Over the top Tea Party video. Long on fear, very short on policy.

Saturday, December 3, 2011

The Tea Party narrative is that it sprang spontaneously in early 2009 when a number of conservatives saw what was happening in the new Obama administration and had to act to "Take Back Our Country." So far, I've found out that, unless you believe the Tea Party sprang fully formed in February 2009 (which I disbelieve based on knowledge of physical systems), the roots of the Tea Party lay before Obama was inaugurated and before the election of 2008.

Bush Crumble

The real roots of the Tea Party start after the Democrats gained control of the House and Senate in 2007. With Democrats in control of some of the government, the talk radio conservatives had targets with real power, not just straw men. The Republican nomination race started heating up by April 2007, with Fred Thompson as the conservative favorite. (Note: Most of my information comes from HotAir because the comments are readable, there is more discussion of differing ideas, and the archives are easy to navigate. Since it has links to Michelle Malkin, Allahpundit, pajamasmedia, and similar conservative sites, I took it as representative. Not being a conservative insider, that's the best I can do.)

By fall of 2007, the discontent with the economy, the looming mortgage crisis, torture scandals, and Bush cluelessness and over-promising had grown to the point that is clear that the country wouldn't vote for a Bush clone in 2008.

Pick the Un-Bush

McCain, the maverick who sponsored unRepublican legislation like public campaign financing, cap-and-trade, immigration reform, etc., seemed the most favored of the Republican candidates, at least by the general electorate. After more conventional conservatives--Thompson and Guilani--fizzled in early 2008, it became a two-man race between McCain and Huckabee. McCain won fairly easily.

However, most of the party supported him reluctantly. They hated his previous stance on amnesty for illegals immigrants. In fact, the most common epithet for him was McShamnesty. Huckabee was disliked even more for supporting more generous social programs and being too much a Christian and not enough a conservative. He was also blamed for blocking the only other credible challenger, Romney. This was a surprise to me, but here's a typical comment:

"Ok.
Today I sign up on Mitt’s site and donate. If it is McCain v.
Hillary in November I pull the GOP lever except for POTUS. That I leave
untouched. 4 years of Marxism, then back to conservatism." - HotAir
comment 1/29/08

It's important to remember that Romney was seen as a Mr. Fixit with fairly solid conservative credentials in 2008. The requirement for purity didn't exist then. In fact, Romney was a good contrast with the dumb, dependent-on-advisers Bush. He wasn't as popular with movement conservatives as Fred Thompson, but he was more on the ball with policy details. Also, this is before Obamacare became evil incarnate and damned Romney's Massachusetts healthcare program with it.

So in early 2008, McCain was on his way to the Republican nomination, but he was hated almost as much as this woman (image from the HotAir website):

Changing the One (We Hate)

By the February, McCain had sewed up the nomination, but the Democratic race was still going strong. Hillary was slipping from the most-hated throne as Obama ascended to it. By April, Obama was the one to hate, disrespect, and belittle:

'He wants people to believe that he can change the game, but in the three
short years he has served in national office, he has done nothing
to suggest that. John McCain actually has a track record of working
across party divisions and trying to reach solutions on controversial
issues; Barack Obama prefers to reserve his “political capital”.' - Ed Morrissey, 4/24/08

"It is all about being labeled in History books: 'Barack Hussein Obama, the First African-American President of the
United States of America' THAT IS ALL. Why people can’t get it? Idiocy is rampant in America." - HotAir comment 4/24/08

Self-Awareness

There were flickers of self-awareness during the nomination process. Karl Rove was blasted for giving bad advice to Bush, but he could "only do so much for a guy like GW Bush." The first strong self-criticism came in May:

"Memo to the GOP: we don’t believe your rhetoric any longer. Oh,
conservatives still want an end to corruption, a reduction in the size
and scope of the federal government, and spending discipline to go with
lower taxes. We just don’t believe that many elected Republicans
want those goals, nor do we think that current Republican leadership
has any real commitment to them, either." - Ed Morrissey, 5/22/08

Even McCain's meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans and Obama's tax plan got some fair discussions.

First Tea in the Harbor

Everything changed with the Wall Street bailout. This is also the first fight in the Tea Party struggle, before it was called the Tea Party. More bloggers and their commenters rallied around McCain, and the vitriol flew at Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.

"McCain’s got little choice other than to support the bill. But chalk me up as one who thinks he should demand a “clean” bill.
That way, he can demonstrate that he’s casting a vote to protect the
American people, not bloat the government even more with pork." - HotAir comment 9/23/08

"I wish someone would run an ad calling out Obama for what he is, a
Marxist…The left has pounded home the “fact” that Bush was an idiot for
eight years, and the average jughead on the street, it’s all he knows.
“Vote against Bush”. The message needs to be changed to “Vote against
Marxism”." - HotAir comment
9/30/08

"True conservatives should be against this 'crap sandwich'." - HotAir comment 9/30/08

After the first version of the bailout was defeated in the House, it passed on the second vote on Oct. 1. Votes for the bailout have since been an issue for Republicans facing Tea Party-backed primary challengers. Although at the time conservative opinion was quite split, afterward it was a stain on the record of Republicans if they didn't stand against the big-government bailout. This position ignores the financial crisis the country was suffering, but such nuance doesn't register with the Tea Party.

The campaign just got nastier after that bailout passed with both candidates supporting it. Obama was called a socialist, marxist, black liberationist, empty suit, elitist, the ONE, and media-anointed messiah.

Regroup and Reload

With the economy in crisis, the expectations of late 2007 came true, and the Democrats sailed to victory, winning the presidency, more seats in the house, and what looked like a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The one bright spot for movement conservatives was Sarah Palin. She was almost uniformly adored by the conservative blogosphere. They loved that she was the attack dog against the evil socialists in general and Obama in particular. After the election, McCain went back to being panned as a fraudulent conservative.

The day after the election, the movement conservatives actually rallied. There was a gracious concession to the election victors, but only in the polite right-leaning press. In talk radio and the conservative blogosphere, Obama was slammed as viciously as before.

Jeff Flake, an Arizona congressman, summed up the loss this way in the polite press:

Let's face it: We Republicans are now, by any reasonable measurement,
deep in the political wilderness... Today the party is defined in the public mind by the Bush presidency... I suggest that we return to first principles. At the top of that list
has to be a recommitment to limited government.

Most House Republicans opposed the recent bailout and will be in a
strong position to promote economic freedom over central planning ....As surely as the sun rises in the east, the Democrats will overreach. As long as we Republicans... get back to
first principles and work like there's no tomorrow, we've got 'em just
where we want 'em.

In the impolite talk radio and blogosphere

Limbaugh: "But do you know what the Democrat plan for your 401(k) is?... So far, this is not Obama yet ...the odds are that it will sound attractive to [Obama] because these people
are all about expanding government coffers."

Limbaugh: "I do not want unity with President-Elect Obama! ... By the time all this is
all over, 57 million Americans will have voted "no" on this stuff! I,
for one, do not think it wise to abandon 57 million Americans who want
no part of an Obama agenda..."

Jason Lewis: "We are the 'leave us alone' crowd, so naturally we don't gravitate
towards government. Unfortunately, you've got this well-funded, merry
band of committed socialists who look at government for power. We need
people committed to defending free-market capitalism."

MacRanger: "This is a call to fellow conservative bloggers to join together in a
coalition with one goal, to return the White House and the Congress to
true conservative Republican control.
Let’s get to work!" MacRanger also published his first birther post only after the election, on Nov. 9.

HotAir comment: "If I hear one more person say 'wait ’til he’s been in office a while
before you judge him,' I’m gonna smack that individual right in the
mouth. If by now, you cannot discern HOW Obama will govern from his past
actions,and statements, then ya gotta have the sentience of a fence
post.

HotAir comment: "We can sit here all day and comment on this blog, but we’re preaching
to the choir here! The elites in DC and NYC don’t even know we’re
here! The left thinks the right voted AGAINST The Big O because of
race! They don’t EVEN know how we feel, what we stand for, or the fact
we’re highly intelligent people... We’re
going to have to get off our butts and away from our computers
and take it to the streets. We need a ring-leader obviously!
Some one give us a date or series
of dates, locations, and tell us what we’re marching for on that
particular day (we have so many things to protest), and we’ll do it!

The last comment sounds like the Tea Party, doesn't it? The ideas of no cooperation, stone wall opposition in Congress, and constant vocal hammering were already in the talk radio and blog media well before Obama was even inaugurated. The transition to street protest just got the ideas out in the open where non-conservatives could see it. That was easy to do. Some local conservatives, already networked and already steeped in the language, needed only to organize conservatives from their local areas. The ideas, the talking points, many of the tactics, and the enthusiastic troops were already poised in 2008. They just needed a name and a date. And they got those on Feb. 19, 2009.

The Tea Party may have the narrative that the small-government conservatives slumbered during the big, bad Bush administration, but awoke just in time to hem in the socialist threat from Obama. That's a convenient story if they want to paint themselves as heroes, when actually they were deaf, dumb, or collaborators while Bush pissed away 8 years and trillions of dollars that we can't get back now.

Friday, December 2, 2011

Back in August, I warned that there would be a fight over the 2% Social Security payroll tax cut that expires at the end of the year. Now we are there. (For anyone keeping score on me, I blew it on my political reboot prediction and my super committee prediction. Overall my record isn't great. Sue me.)

This tax started just last year as part of the crappy deal to save the Bush tax cuts and blow another hole in our lousy deficit budget.

Now the Senate, and only the Senate, are voting on and discussing this issue. The Democratic proposal, which includes further payroll tax cuts and an unemployment extension, pays for the spending with a surtax on the wealthy. Republicans countered with a salary freeze on federal workers (acutally, a future freeze since the current freeze was part of an earlier deal) and personnel cuts by attrition. Neither proposal met the 60 votes minimum needed to move ahead in the Senate.

The Republicans aren't big supporters of this tax cut. It wasn't "paid for" with spending cuts (making it a kissing cousin to the Bush tax cuts, not that Republicans acknowledge that). It also was part of Obama's price for agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts last December. If you're a politician who hates all things Obama, these tax cuts would be included. A lot of Republicans would like to see these tax cuts die quietly. In fact, 26 Republican senators voted against the Republican plan.

The Democrats, however, want to make hay over these cuts. They want to show that Republicans cling to their tax cuts, but won't raise a finger for Joe Sixpack's payroll tax cuts.

Republicans don't have a strong counter story to this... yet. They can say that it's bad for Social Security, which it is, among many other things. They can say that the Democrats just want to soak the rich and piled on even more spending, which is true, and not the best move by the Dems. But the Republicans aren't in a good place to defend the Bush tax cuts after this.

They should be scrambling to fix this narrative, but I'm not seeing it yet. The House isn't doing anything. They probably hope when Senate's competing bills fail, "it isn't the House's fault." I think the Senate will oblige them.

However, if the Senate does manage to negotiate a continuation of this tax cut and negotiates a way to pay for it, that would be a hugely unexpected breakthrough in partisan gridlock. It would open a major new dynamic. Suddenly, the House, with its rigid, no-compromise, take-no-prisoners talk, would look like the obstructionists they've been. And many politicians up for re-election this year would have to show what camp they're in -- compromise or no compromise.

I'm not a fan of continuing stimulus, this particular tax cut, or its continuation, but I am a fan of putting politicians in stark relief, and making them justify the positions they've taken. This tax cut isn't sacrosanct, and either are the Bush tax cuts. That is where the real conversation should start.

Update 12/2/11. Boehner is trying to write something that his House Republicans will pass. They don't like the tax, so Boehner is trying to sweeten it with extraneous Republican tidbits. However, what Republicans consider tempting enough are actually huge concessions that the Democrats would never make:

"We'll give you this 2% tax cut extension if you give us the Keystone pipeline."

That probably sounds as attractive as the Republicans super committee offer:

"We'll give you $500 billion in 'revenue' if you give us continuation of all the Bush tax cuts."

Update 12/20/11.The Senate didn't manage a breakthrough, but managed to negotiate a reprieve for two months with solid bipartisan support (89-10). The House Republicans want to stick with their bill, and make the Senate accept it NOW. However, a minority of the House Republicans would rather vote for the Senate bill and take the reprieve. The Republican leadership, knowing they have wavering members, won't put the Senate bill up for a vote. The ball is in the House's court, and we'll see how stubborn the House Republicans are. This is the stark relief I hoped to see, though I'm looking forward to seeing it in the Senate too.

Update 12/22/11. McConnell is trying to close the gap. Currently the House Republicans are saying 'no deal unless it's negotiated before Jan. 1.' The Prez is saying 'two month extension, and we start negotiating on Jan.1.' McConnell can make them both partial winners--'two month extension, and negotiations start today.' I predict that is what will happen today or tomorrow, and McConnell will get the credit. The saga continues. (Eye roll on a national scale.)

Second Update 12/22/11. House Republicans give in and agree to a 2-month extension. Merry Christmas, good-bye Scrooge, and God bless us everyone.

Remembering my friend

Search my blog

I've now written over 200 posts on topics as diverse as the money supply, the auto bailout, and being a minority. If you want to search for a particular topic, I recommend using Google search. Enter "moderatepoli" and the topic in the search box. It's the fastest way to find my posts on any subject.